Personally, I would only only consider a "phablet" to be a device larger than the majority of smart phones, and smaller than the majority of tablets, otherwise, why make a distinction? You're only referring to a union of all devices, not a distinct class of device.

Isn't that too imprecise? And volatile? If your criteria were the "majority" of smart phones and tablets sold each year, well then that might change from year to year. As an analyst doing a report like this, you need to make a clear distinction -- even if it is a wrong one -- for the sake of clarity and consistency.

Isn't that too imprecise? And volatile? If your criteria were the "majority" of smart phones and tablets sold each year, well then that might change from year to year. As an analyst doing a report like this, you need to make a clear distinction -- even if it is a wrong one -- for the sake of clarity and consistency.

--Pat

Sure, but it makes more sense to have some fringe cases to argue about, and to have to shift the definition now and then (like when powerful PC were called "workstations" but then even entry level PCs encroached on workstation performance levels), then to have a term which covers everything and therefore conveys no useful info.

I'll believe a 7" device is phone worthy of a ph prefix when I see people with 7" devices help up to their ears on the subway.

I believe the 4.5"-5.5" definition you mentioned earlier is closer to useful to distinguish a class apart from true smartphone or tablet. I think 4.75"-6" might be better.

Unless the term really is intended to refer to the superset of phones and tablets and everything in between.....

Sure, but it makes more sense to have some fringe cases to argue about, and to have to shift the definition now and then (like when powerful PC were called "workstations" but then even entry level PCs encroached on workstation performance levels), then to have a term which covers everything and therefore conveys no useful info.

But Barclays' report doesn't cover everything. It excludes the vast majority of iOS and android devices in use today. And we can quibble all we want about what should be considered a "phablet" but the point is an analyst writing up a report like this needs to draw the line somewhere.

Quote:

I think 4.75"-6" might be better.

So let's say it's defined that way. How would you then characterize the next iPhone if it has a 4.5" screen? Still just a smartphone? And the Samsung Galaxy Note III is rumored to have a screen larger than 6 inches. Is that then not a phablet anymore?

But Barclays' report doesn't cover everything. It excludes the vast majority of iOS and android devices in use today. And we can quibble all we want about what should be considered a "phablet" but the point is an analyst writing up a report like this needs to draw the line somewhere.

So let's say it's defined that way. How would you then characterize the next iPhone if it has a 4.5" screen? Still just a smartphone? And the Samsung Galaxy Note III is rumored to have a screen larger than 6 inches. Is that then not a phablet anymore?

--Pat

The >6 inch device would be one of the fringe cases worth arguing over, unless it was so much over six that it was just a 7" tablet.

As for the report, I really could not, from my cursory reading, understand WHAT the point was.
They mention they exclude iPhone, but I am not clear on why.
And in one breath the say that screen size should not be the defining characteristic, and the term should include all crossover devices (which, in my mind would include every high end Android smartphone, and the iPhone) and in the next, they talk about the defining characteristic being screen size.

That's why I'm leaning on the side of "not so useful a report."

For myself, until we have folding screens, even the 5" Note seems ridiculously large to carry as the primary personal communicator that phones have become. Anything larger than that is a tablet in my mind, and the ability make a phone call on one is just an incidental feature. I think "phablets" serve a niche market of folks who will always carry such a large device, but won't also carry a second much smaller device. Certainly not a game changer, as the report seems to suggest.

And why is that? Everything said in the article covering the report made perfect sense to me.

--Pat

That says a lot more about you than it does about the article.

I wish I could be paid to be an "analyst." Only a professional con man could group every popular mobile device except for the 10" iPad into a category with an idiotic name and claim that it's slated to grow next year. Wow, big [edit] surprise there. Not only do they get paid to write this garbage, people on forums say it makes perfect sense to them.

I wish I could be paid to be an "analyst." Only a professional con man could group every popular mobile device except for the 10" iPad into a category with an idiotic name and claim that it's slated to grow next year. Wow, big [edit] surprise there. Not only do they get paid to write this garbage, people on forums say it makes perfect sense to them.

Paradise.

Well that says a lot more about you than it does about the article!

The report certainly does NOT group "every popular mobile device" into that category. Read it again.

The >6 inch device would be one of the fringe cases worth arguing over, unless it was so much over six that it was just a 7" tablet.

One rumor has it as 6.3 inches. So is it phablet or tablet?

Quote:

As for the report, I really could not, from my cursory reading, understand WHAT the point was.

Since it's an analysts report, I think it's meant to primarily give guidance to investors. The point being the area of biggest growth will be in the 5" - 6" range or thereabouts. The definitions are less important than the overall conclusions.

Quote:

They mention they exclude iPhone, but I am not clear on why.

Barclays' analysts in this report don't exclude the iPhone 5.

Quote:

For myself, until we have folding screens, even the 5" Note seems ridiculously large to carry as the primary personal communicator that phones have become ... I think "phablets" serve a niche market of folks who will always carry such a large device, but won't also carry a second much smaller device. Certainly not a game changer, as the report seems to suggest.

To each his own. But I agree with the report that the overwhelming trend is toward a bigger screen. A device that can do it all.

But people can and do make calls on 7" tablets which is why I think they include them in their category.

Even if you want to exclude 7" tablets, and just consider phablets using the narrower definition, I think the story and conclusions would be pretty much the same.

You should exclude 7" tablets as they are clearly a distinct category in their own right and the threshold for a phablet should be higher than 4.5" which is basically mainstream now.

Probably the area that should be considered should be the 5" to 6" range of devices that are still primarily considered to be phones and in that area I would expect that the growth might even be higher due to the simple fact that it was previously only a niche option and now more and more companies are looking at it as an obvious part of their portfolio.

It is too soon to draw any real conclusions about any trends relating to that size with the only real conclusion that can be made is that there is a market for that size device and even that one is tempered by the fact that few companies are giving people the option of buying a phone with higher end components without it also have an ever bigger display.

For myself, until we have folding screens, even the 5" Note seems ridiculously large to carry as the primary personal communicator that phones have become. Anything larger than that is a tablet in my mind, and the ability make a phone call on one is just an incidental feature. I think "phablets" serve a niche market of folks who will always carry such a large device, but won't also carry a second much smaller device. Certainly not a game changer, as the report seems to suggest.

There are actually plenty of people in general that will use such a large device as their primary communication device though, if your phone is going to be in a jacket pocket or a handbag anyway then it doesn't really matter about that extra size.

There are actually plenty of people in general that will use such a large device as their primary communication device though, if your phone is going to be in a jacket pocket or a handbag anyway then it doesn't really matter about that extra size.

Niche < plenty < game changer?

And I reject that it inherently doesn't matter if you keep it in a jacket or handbag. It adds bulk and weight which some segment of that group will find objectionable. Many of those people need room in their pockets and bags for other things.

Probably the area that should be considered should be the 5" to 6" range of devices that are still primarily considered to be phones and in that area I would expect that the growth might even be higher due to the simple fact that it was previously only a niche option and now more and more companies are looking at it as an obvious part of their portfolio.

I agree that the 5-6" range will probably see the highest area of growth, but not because companies simply want to add that size to their product portfolios. Rather, I think it represents a sweet spot in terms of portability and usability. So it will be very popular.

Quote:

It is too soon to draw any real conclusions about any trends relating to that size with the only real conclusion that can be made is that there is a market for that size device

Really? Selling 10 million Galaxy Note II's in just a few months isn't impressive enough?

Quote:

... and even that one is tempered by the fact that few companies are giving people the option of buying a phone with higher end components without it also have an ever bigger display.

Here's hoping that this pointless race beyond about 5" on phones becomes a sizable niche rather than the only option because other than that size opening up the option of a 1080p display it just seems a waste and something in the 4.2-4.5" range that would have a 720p display while still being small enough to use comfortably one-handed by most people would seem like a better option to me.

. Rather, I think it represents a sweet spot in terms of portability and usability. So it will be very popular.

I think it represents a device too big to be a good phone and too small to be a good tablet. If it does indeed show a high RATE of growth, it will only be because of novelty, so I don't think it will ever grow to the absolute popularity numbers that either smaller phones or larger tablets enjoy (until we have folding screens).

I'll bet you a drink. Meet you back here in 2014 and winner buys the Dr. Pepper.

Personally, I would only only consider a "phablet" to be a device larger than the majority of smart phones, and smaller than the majority of tablets, otherwise, why make a distinction? You're only referring to a union of all devices, not a distinct class of device.

That's a moving goalpost. By your definition, 3 years ago 4" would have been a phablet; now 4.5"+ is the norm (most phones now come out at 4.7" and larger), and we already have phones in the 6.x" range.